The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Library
Click Here to Login

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 10-04-2020, 05:38 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Part two of the serialisation -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ve-Africa.html
__________________

  #102  
Old 10-04-2020, 05:43 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
As it happens, those examples were pretty true. The queen has her faults, but she wasn't a silly mess like Margo. George V was a reasonably good King. probably Eddy would have been an awful one. Ditto with George VI and the D of Windsor. Andrew and Charles.. well need I say more?
I am afraid the press and yes the palace have worked like this for years. They identify the hero and the villain for you. It is stereotypic casting at its worst as people are not depicted as full characters. And yes it is still been done very heartily today.
__________________

  #103  
Old 10-04-2020, 05:57 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I am afraid the press and yes the palace have worked like this for years. They identify the hero and the villain for you. It is stereotypic casting at its worst as people are not depicted as full characters. And yes it is still been done very heartily today.
er my point was that these were true cases where one prince/ess was far from satisfactory and the other one was good at his or her job. Nothing to do with the press or the palace...
  #104  
Old 10-04-2020, 06:01 PM
RJC's Avatar
RJC RJC is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 291
This part is a bit different from Sun Lion's above

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-marriage.html
  #105  
Old 10-04-2020, 06:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Harry has a lot of explosions ..it seems no one can say anything to him without having to walk on eggshells.

I‘ll be honest, while the stuff about Geidt and Young is interesting, it doesn’t change my opinion about how HM and Charles handled H and M. The below segment does bother me because...what is wrong with Charles wanting some more power once his father was retired? He is the future King. For this correspondent to make a snide comment about how Charles has his own agenda is unfair...IMO

Quote:
It was one of the most shameful and, frankly, shabby decisions that the Queen has made in her entire reign,' says one extremely senior and distinguished court correspondent. 'All Geidt wanted was to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, but that is not Charles's agenda any more.'
  #106  
Old 10-04-2020, 06:35 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJC View Post
This part is a bit different from Sun Lion's above

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-marriage.html
Thanks RJC.

If Cressida Bonas had married Prince Harry, his life might still have had major issues spilling out into public view by the look of things.


With William possibly taking over Harry’s Marines role at the end of the review year, it may be even harder for the problems between the brothers to be resolved.

Even though it’s traditionally been a position held by the Monarch/Monarch’s spouse, and so William is the right choice now the Sussexes are out, I can see Harry taking it personally and it being another issue between them.

Rebecca English and Robert Lacey will be doing a podcast about the book - details on Ms English’s Twitter.
  #107  
Old 10-04-2020, 09:39 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I really don’t agree that this is the case here (though I’m not even conceding the above examples, I won’t discuss that here as that’s off topic). Frankly, this book seems to me as if it’s personally sympathetic to Harry and Meghan while acknowledging their ridiculous handling of Megxit. At the same time, it seems quite harsh towards HM, Charles and William and, as Lacey has written opinion pieces since Megxit, it doesn’t surprise me. He seems harshest on William, even saying in one of the recent articles that it seems like his affection for Harry is based on his ability to control his younger brother. That’s related to W’s quote saying that he can no longer put his arm around Harry.

I’m kind of done with Lacey.
He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far from the book. It seems really overdramatized, you can tell Lacey has been spending too much time in the Netflix/entertainment sector. And it seems very colored by his personal projections and musings. Maybe if he had more time to write and research it would have been better developed but I think he wanted the release to to coincide with the new season of "The Crown" and piggyback off that fanbase.
  #108  
Old 10-05-2020, 12:12 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far from the book. It seems really overdramatized, you can tell Lacey has been spending too much time in the Netflix/entertainment sector. And it seems very colored by his personal projections and musings. Maybe if he had more time to write and research it would have been better developed but I think he wanted the release to to coincide with the new season of "The Crown" and piggyback off that fanbase.

Perhaps Lacey should quit being so judgmental. Harry is an adult - must everyone hold his hand?

Everything you say makes sense...and if it’s true, I have to ask what Lacey’s real goal was in writing this book: to bring facts to light or to speculate and interpret?
  #109  
Old 10-05-2020, 12:39 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Perhaps Lacey should quit being so judgmental. Harry is an adult - must everyone hold his hand?

Everything you say makes sense...and if it’s true, I have to ask what Lacey’s real goal was in writing this book: to bring facts to light or to speculate and interpret?
I'm not sure there was much of a goal other then to quickly get a book out before the Sussexes became yesterdays news, preferably at the same time as The Crown comes out.

As for why he's such a huge fan a Geidt, who knows. Maybe they personally know each other or his sources were some of Geidt's employees.

As for his hand-holding of Harry, I guess we all have our "pet" royals and Harry might be his. I doubt their mutual Netflix connection would be of that much sway to the point he was encouraged to romanticize Harry's character quirks/flaws.

But clearly this was more written as an editorial and less as a factual textbook. I think you learn more about Lacey reading this than you do about the BRF and Sussexit. But insight into Lacey's mind is interesting in it's own way.
  #110  
Old 10-05-2020, 01:10 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
er my point was that these were true cases where one prince/ess was far from satisfactory and the other one was good at his or her job. Nothing to do with the press or the palace...
Not necessary - it has always seemed that the Heirs get the best press - or the palace ensures they get the better press. However when the heir gives issues it switches and suddenly the spare is the far better person.

The palace has for long promoted one royal over another because the easiest way to make one person look bad is to show another up. So I have never really believed that Margaret was as wild as they made her out - she simply pitted against the Queen.
People are not stereotypes - but it is easier for the general public to see them that way and the royal will spend a life time trying to get out of the box they have put them in. Margaret decided to embrace the box and completely live up to it - I think she came to regret it later.
The problem is sometimes the persona of the royal and the royal in reality bear no resemblance to each other in truth that is creates an enigma.
  #111  
Old 10-05-2020, 04:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
He's Pro-Harry for sure. On one hand he portrays Harry as a lost boy with so much potential that he just needed more guidance in harnessing it correctly, on the other hand he gets huffy that Harry was treated with kid gloves instead of being giving full command of himself. Kind of a mixed message there, both are very sympathetic towards Harry but counter each other's argument. And I'm not so sure Lacey favors Meghan, he compliments her in a very femme fatale sort of way. I think it's more to build extra excuses for Harry -Of course he couldn't resist her charms or her ideas!-

It's not so harsh against William in the sense that it portrays William is being put in an awkward position. It's a very pro-Geidt (therefore anti-Charles). So basically he's saying that once Geidt was forced out, William sort of had to take over as BRF disciplinarian, especially with Philip's retirement. I think he's saying Harry and William's relationship would have never fractured if Geidt was still there to rein in Harry. So Andrew and Charles in ousting Geidt, forced William into a very awkward situation with Harry. And Harry resented that William was now 'babysitting' him. So Harry rebelled against William the same way Andrew and Charles rebelled against Geidt.

It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Geidt or not Geidt, William would have of had a lot of problems with the celebrity/political/commercial approach that Meghan and Harry are so keen on. And I don't think the Sussexes would have ever been satisfied in a supporting role in the monarchy. Geidt isn't a miracle worker, he's just hard-nosed and not afraid to say "bad idea" to some of the more entitled family members.

e.
SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William..
I agree that it seems that Harry and Meg had a different attitude to their roles.. and wanted a more celebrity like way of doing things.. but Ihonestly dont think anyone could have reined htem in..
  #112  
Old 10-05-2020, 05:05 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William...
Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. Probably similar to The Queen not liking being the bad guy so having Philip/Geidt in the enforcer role instead. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.
  #113  
Old 10-05-2020, 05:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.
Possibly that's true, I think that Charles has always had difficulty saying no to Harry because he feels for him having lost his mother and because he himself feels guilty about not being there so much when he and Will were small.. but I can't honestly see that people would expect Wil who is only 2 years older to discipline Harry and he is his brother. But I would imagine that Charles wanted to get rid of Geidt because he himself wanted to have more power in teh family, not surprisingly. The queen is now very elderly and I think she needs some more input from Charles and William to make hard decsiions.
  #114  
Old 10-05-2020, 06:41 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
I think it is more that the Queen needs their input to understand the implication, to have it placed into context and maybe to have a better rounded view.
Personally I think that needed to call in a lawyer, accountant and PR manager and a whole bunch of people to understand this conundrum - no one is an expert on everything.
  #115  
Old 10-05-2020, 09:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I'm not sure there was much of a goal other then to quickly get a book out before the Sussexes became yesterdays news, preferably at the same time as The Crown comes out.

As for why he's such a huge fan a Geidt, who knows. Maybe they personally know each other or his sources were some of Geidt's employees.

As for his hand-holding of Harry, I guess we all have our "pet" royals and Harry might be his. I doubt their mutual Netflix connection would be of that much sway to the point he was encouraged to romanticize Harry's character quirks/flaws.

But clearly this was more written as an editorial and less as a factual textbook. I think you learn more about Lacey reading this than you do about the BRF and Sussexit. But insight into Lacey's mind is interesting in it's own way.
This is the larger point I take from this, and I hope that people who read the book won’t just gush over it because of Lacey’s rep; in its own way, it’s as bad as FF.

Quote:
Who knows. Like I said it's critical of Charles. Probably believes that it's difficult for Charles to say no to Harry so he passes the discipline jurisdiction to William. Probably similar to The Queen not liking being the bad guy so having Philip/Geidt in the enforcer role instead. There's probably some kernel of truth in William having a role like that, last year when Andrew was forced to step down the papers wrote that William had heavy input in that decision.

And of course when Diana died, Charles told William first because he wanted the two of them to tell Harry together. So even back then there is a sense of Charles relying on William in regards to Harry.

Like most of the book so far, it's some basic facts that grow wildly under the light of speculation and assumption.

I don’t think there’s any proof that Charles delegated his son to do dirty work - and it’s gross that he would suggest it (if true). As to William being part of Andrew discussions, that’s because he’s a future King, not because Charles needs William there to be strong and authoritative. Charles clearly has no issue being just that - and for Lacey, he said “no” to Harry’s request for a separate office at Windsor. Well actually he agreed with his mother, but still.

I do think you could be right in how Lacey interpret things, and that really bothers me. I’m biased because I love Charles, but it seems to me this book is a rip job on him. Of course it’s a rip job on HM as well in some regards. Naturally the media will fall all over Lacey because of his rep, and that’s a shame. The book seemingly has a lot in common with FF in some ways..
  #116  
Old 10-05-2020, 09:20 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Dickie Arbiter released a screenshot of The Times newspaper, where the columnist Libby Purves criticised Robert Lacey's book. The article has the heading, Royals don't deserve this baseline psychobabble. It has the blurb, Robert Lacey's new book about Princes William and Harry tells us more about royal Kremlinologists than the Windsors.
Dickie Arbiter [Flag of United Kingdom] @RoyalDickie
Excellent piece - in a nutshell - by #LibbyPurves on P27 of today's @thetimes on #RobertLacey's latest #royal tome [Clapping hands signClapping hands sign]
6:32 PM · Oct 5, 2020·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/stat...19117532835840
  #117  
Old 10-05-2020, 11:27 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
William has for some years had an enhanced role within the Firm and has been clearly positioned as the heir's heir. Charles has in the past been known to indulge in the "ostrich" behaviour that his grandmother QEQM was known for and probably dithered and prevaricated somewhat in how to handle Harry. William appears to be more resolute in taking decisions to protect the Monarchy which I welcome, and clearly saw the potential implications of the Sussex Show from early on.
  #118  
Old 10-05-2020, 12:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Peterborough, Canada
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
SO, why would William be forced into the role of "family disciplinarian" on Geidts retirement? I would have though that if Charles had gotten rid of this man, he himself would be family disciplinarian now, with Philip and Geidt boht retired. Not sure why it would have been William...

Your comments make me think back to when William and Harry were children. Their parents' marriage was troubled and there were bitter feelings on both sides; I recall thinking at the time that it seemed as if William had become "parentified." Why? Amongst other things, during one of the most fraught periods of the "War of the Wales", a photograph of Diana and William leaving somewhere was published--the preteen or young adolescent William was holding Diana's hand (not the other way around). This can happen in families where a parent leans too much on the child for emotional support. His parents were in the middle of a public, messy separation. I am not surprised if William were to assume the role of "family disciplinarian" in his adult life.



Pure speculation of course.
  #119  
Old 10-05-2020, 12:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
William has for some years had an enhanced role within the Firm and has been clearly positioned as the heir's heir. Charles has in the past been known to indulge in the "ostrich" behaviour that his grandmother QEQM was known for and probably dithered and prevaricated somewhat in how to handle Harry. William appears to be more resolute in taking decisions to protect the Monarchy which I welcome, and clearly saw the potential implications of the Sussex Show from early on.
I completely disagree with the notion that William has been more “resolute” and determined than Charles in protecting the monarchy. Charles is the one who often takes his mother’s place at engagements, Charles is the one who HM speaks with often about “crises” (like with Andrew and Megxit). Yes, William is involved, but to a much lesser degree than his father. It was Charles who insisted to his mother that Andrew had to go, Charles who worked with HM to try and find a workable solution to Megxit, Charles who agreed with HM that Harry should not have his own office at Windsor. William has a fairly significant role in protecting the monarchy but he’s not more effective or active than his father.
  #120  
Old 10-05-2020, 12:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Dickie Arbiter released a screenshot of The Times newspaper, where the columnist Libby Purves criticised Robert Lacey's book. The article has the heading, Royals don't deserve this baseline psychobabble. It has the blurb, Robert Lacey's new book about Princes William and Harry tells us more about royal Kremlinologists than the Windsors.
Dickie Arbiter [Flag of United Kingdom] @RoyalDickie
Excellent piece - in a nutshell - by #LibbyPurves on P27 of today's @thetimes on #RobertLacey's latest #royal tome [Clapping hands signClapping hands sign]
6:32 PM · Oct 5, 2020·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/stat...19117532835840
I couldn’t agree more with the article, and I’m glad Dickie also feels the same. I think the fact Lacey claiming that a personal rift between the brothers is at least on par with the Abdication, a Constitutional crisis that had worldwide ramifications, speaks volumes. I’m at least as upset about his speculation and opinions on the BRF relationships.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
duke of cambridge, duke of sussex, family life


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inside Monaco: Playground of the Rich sophie25 The Electronic Domain 15 06-22-2020 06:03 PM
"The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" eya The Electronic Domain 10 02-19-2020 11:26 PM
"The Monarchy Inside" (2010) - DR Documentary on Working Lives of Danish Royal Family Paty The Electronic Domain 184 06-19-2015 03:36 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×